tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News October 6, 2009 4:00am-5:00am EDT
night, america. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] bret: next from the supreme court, a new year and a new justice. we will look at impact of past rulings, including gun rights in d.c. and eminent domain in connecticut. critics say the president's stimulus is failing to stimulate job growth so the white house is trying to come up with more help for the jobless. as iran promises cooperation over its nuclear program, there are significant trust issues in the u.s. all that, plus the all-star panel. "special report" live from the supreme court starts right now.
welcome to washington. i'm bret baier. this is the first monday in october, the start of another supreme court term. this year's panel has a new member, and a lot of new cases that will range from having a very narrow focus to impacting the lives of millions of americans. correspondent shannon bream begins our coverage with a look at the newest associate justice, and the docket for her first year. >> i certainly think by anyone's analysis, this term is shaping up as a potential blockbuster, and today is the opening day. >> fresh term, a new justice and a docket full of controversy, including issues as diverse as whether grisly dogfighting tapes are protected as free speech and whether jeffrey skilling should be able to appeal his 16 convictions related to the falling of his company. >> the judges will have
decisions on a wide variety of areas. the american public needs to tune in more to the supreme court, because it is issuing rulings that will have a profound effect on our democracy and on our everyday lives. >> newly minted justice sonia sotomayor will squarely face the issues that raise concerns from both sides of the aisle -- gun control. while the court has ruled that the second amendment provides an individual right to gun ownership, later this term it will tackle the next question -- whether or not the second amendment actually applies to the states and what power they do or don't have to ban citizens from roaning guns. by all accounts, the court's newest member is embracing her public roll, throwing out the first pitch at a yankees' game and joining her colleagues at a catholic ceremony for members of the legal profession, and dancing the night away, but what only time will ultimately reveal is what impact she may be vpg when the nine justices sit down
to hack out the disputes that determine the framework of how american society is governed. >> they close doors and focus with their intelligence and perspectives to bear on these complex, hotly contested legal issues. it adds to the allure, mystique and excite many that is the supreme court. bret: shannon dream now joins me. justice john paul stevens, only hired one law clerk for this term, and that is raising some eyebrows. >> it s everybody wants to read into that, because normally by this time, justice stevens would have hired four clerks, a full complement. a retired justice only needs one clerk. he is not addressing those rumors. he's not talking about retirement. he looks great today and fully engaged like he uls is. the question is still up in the air. bret: when you mentioned the red mask there, it is interesting that in this court, six of the nine justices are catholics. >> they are. in the 220-year history of the court, only 12 justices have been catholic in all of that time, and now half of those are
visiting on the bench. they did attend the red mass today -- excuse me, yesterday and it was a show of solidarity among all of them. bret: we will look tonight at high-profile court decisions and the practical results. first up, a case that has become a symbol of big government versus the little guy. here is senior correspondent eric shawn. >> it is still empty. four years after the supreme court ruled that the city of new london, connecticut could use eminent domain laws to seize private property for economic development, there is little growing on the 90-acre site other than weeds and gas. the city paid homeowners market value and forced them to leave. >> mike, where was your house? >> my families home sat basically from the third telephone pole about five foot in from there. >> michael was one of 7 homeowners fighting against the plan that envisioned a hotel, townhouses and retail and commercial space, but it was this little pink house, owned by
the lead plaintiff that became the rallying point for opponents attorney skoll bullock argued the case on behalf of the homeowners. >> it is fundamentally unamerican for the government to take property from one private owner to hand it over to another private owner just because the government thinks that new owner will make more money and pay more tax revenue. >> city officials on the new london development corporation, the public entity that tried to develop this site, say an office project opened in february, but there have been delays. they point to plans for a national coast guard museum and know several companies that have moved into the area. >> between court cases and now that those are wrapping up, you have an economy that has slowed things down. it is taking longer than we expected. >> the worst more and then to haveic eric shawn, . >> president obama made his latest spich for healthcare reform to a group of supportive doctors and nurses this morning
in the oze garden. the president said healthcare workers are able to see the criticisms of current proposals. >> now, these men and women here would not be supporting health insurance reform if they they rely believed that it would lead to government bureaucrats making decisions that are breast left to doctors. it wouldn't be here too if they believe that the reform with damage the critical and sacred doctor-patient relation ship. >> the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus responded with several physicians saying moaftsd of their colleagues -- most of their colleagues oppose the democratic sponsored healthcare proposals. the economy has shown some signs of regaining its health, but the unemployment rate has continueed to climb despite the president's $787 billion stimulus package. major garrett reports that that is a reality that the administration is struggling to address. >> the economic team is certainly looking at and working
on any way that we can create more jobs. >> but right now, the best white house ideas leftovers from the stimulus and have a meager job creation track record. two of those ideas -- extending possible lib for another 12 months unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the chronically unemployed. >> for those who have lost their jobs, those are extremely important. >> job benefits will expire at year's end. the administration's $8,000 tax credit for first time home buyers expires a month earlier. they want to expand that, too. this amounts to economic triage for an economy hit by chronic joblessness. >> over 1/3 of workers out of work and continuing to search for a job have been searching for at least six months. now, prior to this recession, that number had never risen above a quarter. >> the white house refuses to call its emerging plan a second economic stimulus because, well, it's designed to keep people from falling into deeper economic misery, not necessarily
create new jobs. >> i think the program was created to ensure a safety net. i don't think it does anybody any good for somebody to lose their job with which to provide for their family. >> it is hard to believe there is any more bad news. the labor department said friday it shows it revised job cuts from march 2008 to march 2009 was so fast that it could not keep up and that in those 12 months, 5.6 million americans lost their jobs. 824,000 more than the 4.8 million previously reported. >> it tells us both that the recession that we're coming out of was a lot deeper than we expected, and as bad as we thought it was, it's worse. >> that means sustained joblessness, which means skittish consumers which means less tax revenue which means bigger deficits. economists say, however, that things could have been much worse. >> if we had not done the stimulus package, i have
absolutely no doubt that things would be much, much grimmer today than they actually are, and that is a very severe statement just given how bad the labor market is today. >> one part of this agenda is onto fast track. we will pass 13 weeks of extended benefits and the states that have 8.5% unemployment or higher and the president will sign that bill. bret: major, thank you. the u.s. service sector grew by about 3% in september, the first positive numbers in 13 months. the index tracks more than 80% of the country's economic activity. the dow jumped 112 and the s&p 500 rose 15 and the nasdaq picked up 20 points. coming up after a deadly weekend in afghanistan, how close is the president to making a decision about sending in more troops? and the supreme court is a it th place to show you behind the scenes but our friends at c-span were granted unprecedented access over recent weeks and they have allowed us to share
some of that with you tonight. >> the honorable chief justice and associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. >> something different is going on here than what goes on in the capitol building or in the white house and you need to appreciate how important it is to our system of government. you don't sit here to make the law to decide who ought to win. we decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. >> you will be surprised by the high level of!
bret: a gorgeous night here at the supreme court. robert gibbs said today that pulling out of the war in afghanistan is not a viable option. steve centanni reports the growing problems there were brutally illustrated this weekend. >> >> they greatly outnumbered the u.s. troops and they came under heavy fire at their remote
outpost. taliban and foreign leaders fired from a mob and nearby hillsides, killing eight americans in a unit that was soon to be withdrawn but reportedly couldn't move for lack of transport helicopters. which illustrates the current argument over resources in afghanistan. >> you simply can't have an outpost strategy that relies on maintaining these small platoon-sized fire bases in vulnerable areas unless you have the enablers, and that means transport helicopters, aerial drones, and sufficient fire power to protect them. >> the new violence comes as the white house privately debates the way forward in afghanistan and a tough commander there, general mccrystal, campaigns for more resources. white house spokesman robert gibbs was asked if president obama questioned mcchrystal about his public statements during that impromptu meeting on airs force one last week in copenhagen. >> the president had a constructive meeting about what is going on in afghanistan, not what is going on on cable
television. >> national security advisor james jones refuted mccrystal for his speech in london last week advocating more resources in afghanistan. >> ideally, it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command. >> john mccain seems to be questioning jones' credibility. >> general jones believed that we needed to send our troops to the border of iraq and kill al qaeda from outside, which is something i have never really figured out. >> whatever the president does decide, the pentagon says it will be onboard. >> once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability. >> and deliberations continue over the future course in afghanistan. president obama meets with members of congress from both parties tomorrow, and then he will meet with his national security advisors on wednesday and again friday. bret. bret: steve centanni live at the pentagon. thank you. the head of the u.n.'s nuclear
agency says the inspection of iran's previously secret nuclear facility near qom will take place october 25. is iran playing ball with the u.s. and its allies or just playing them? we report. you decide. here is chief washington correspondent jim angle. >> mohammed varde sought to characterize iran's obligatory inspection as a sign of progress. >> i see that we are shifting gears from chron frontation into transparency and cooperation. >> but u.s. senators of both parties have seen this dance before and made clear on fox news sunday they think iran is just playing for time in an effort to build the bomb. >> we are on a path of a nuclear iran which is an unacceptable course. it is clear that iran is headed down the track of getting a nuclear weapon. they have the knowledge. they now have a secret facility. >> the senators are not alone. an unreleased report from u.n. inspectors that leaked out has a
chilling conclusion. it says iran now has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable atom bomb. that, and a recent in your face test of medium-range missiles has convinced senators they need to work immediately on sanctions. >> half measures won't work. we need to get on challenging the iranians with deadlines and ultimatums, quite frankly. >> we want to make sure that at the appropriate time that sanctions have to be imposed and they can be imposed swiftly with consequences, and not have some indefinite time line here but will allow them to continue to lie to the international community as they have done time and again. >> but the options are limited. iran was once dependent on imports of refined gasoline, but with chinese help is now less vulnerable to sanctions. the only real option, says one long-time observer, will take time. >> given the circumstances we have right now, only a massive worldwide effort to keely cut off iran economically, and i
don't think even that would occur soon enough to stop their nuclear program. >> senators are looking for anything that might work or get broader support. ate it's a not clear what that would be but senators of both parties want to move ahead anyway on the assumption it is only a matter of time before iran lies again about its nuclear program. bret. bret: jim, thanks. well, talk about irony, the man who brought communism to china is now a prophet maker for -- a profit maker for chinese capitalists. >> you enter the doors with a history of this court. inside is the great hall that separates the front door from the doors leading into the courtroom. in between huge marble columns along the wall are busts of the supreme court justices. >> i walk through at night, and i walk through the great hall and i look around at the pillars, and it really impresses upon me the importance of the work that we're doing.
as many times as i have walked through that hall, it never ceases to have that impression on me. the sixties were all about freedom. ♪ and now in my sixties, they are again. grandpa, are we there yet? i have the freedom to do what i want... and go where i want. grandpa, come on! freedom is what i like about my medicare supplement insurance. i can see the doctor i want, where i want, anywhere in the country. now your sixties can be a time of freedom again... with aarp medicare supplement insurance plans... insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. because any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare... will accept aarp medicare supplement insurance. anywhere in the u.s. the freedom to do my own thing, without worrying about which doctor i can see. medicare covers only about 80%... of your part b healthcare costs.
the rest has to come out of your pocket. but with an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, you could save up to thousands of dollars... because it helps cover some of the out-of-pocket expenses... medicare doesn't. and only these medicare supplement plans... have the aarp name... and cover more people nationwide... than any other medicare supplement insurance carrier. call today and you'll receive a free information kit... with a customized rate quote to help you choose the plan... that's right for you. you'll learn about a choice of plans... that help cover some of the 20% out-of-pocket costs... that medicare part b doesn't cover, making it easier to budget your annual healthcare expenses. oh, grandpa! and you'll discover how convenient and easy... it is to use your aarp medicare supplement insurance. you just show your card. no hassles. at this time of my life, freedom is everything. medicare only pays for part of your healthcare coverage. you have to come up with the rest. it's all about freedom of choice. back in the sixties, i went my own way. why stop now?
so call today for a free information kit. when you call, you'll also receive... this free educational guide to help you... understand your medicare coverage options. it's yours free, so call now. and learn how aarp medicare supplement insurance... can help make your sixties a time of freedom. again.
bret: in news around the world, the suicide bomber in pakistan struck the u.n. agency headquarters today. the attack happened one day after the new leader of the pakistani taliban promised fresh assaults in retaliation of american drone attacks. in indonesia, helicopters dropped food and0th erg aid to survivors of last week's massive earthquake. the death count is at 600 but the event eventual toll is expected to be in the thousands. in india, the search for survivors has been called off following devastating flooding in the south. the death toll stands at 222. days of torrential rain have
devastated sections of land and displaced millions of people. in china, the man who led the communist revolution has become a tool of capitalism. correspondent dane dana lewis explains from beijing. >> in one of beijing's narrow streets we're incited to take a ride in what was chairman moo mao's limousine. now a author that collects everything related to mao, including a car with bad brakes. >> it is not easy to break a red flag limousine. >> the founder of modern day china from 1r 949 to his death in 1976 has made a comeback of sorts, not only creating the trendy beijing restaurant, the red capital club, but also starting 200 of china's biggest movie stars. he is depicted as the caring father of the nation, loving his
soldiers and citizens, but there is little of his brutality including political purges that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. >> well, i think every culture, every people wants to have an icon and a hero, and very often the sort of dirt of history gets covered over by the romantacism of an era. >> today, china is strong, emerging from deep poverty and it all began with mao's communist revolution. meet his granddaughter who runs a bookstore in beijing. >> we started with nothing. everyone had to work together. no rich. no poor. mao, she says is, a symbol of the nation's power and the spirit of communism, but oddly enough, mao who, railed against capitalism, the icon of socialism, on china's 60th anniversary has become a source of capital income for souvenir vendors. t-shirts, matches, mao is timeless. >> mao, the revoluntionary alarm
clock, and the mao watch waving hello. i bet that watch doesn't go for 60 years, though. >> do people buy these? >> oh, yes. >> why? >> because it is mao. >> what would mao thought of today's china? >> it is hard to say, extremely hard. on one hand he wanted to see china emerge as a superpower that. was one of his dreams. on the other hand, he wanted to close the gaps between itch and poor and those gaps are widening. >> mao was said to be fascinated by contradiction. he once wrote that the world is contradiction and contradiction is the world. what could be more contradictory than a communist country led by a communist government and mao as its symbol of unity? >> coming up, the mainstream media takes on president obama over transparency, plus more from the supreme court. william howard taft, the only president to become a chief justice of the supreme court was the driving force behind moving
the supreme court from the bottom of the capitol where it started to its own building. taft pushed congress to act and lawmakers appropriated $10 million to build a supreme court. the building was built with over 75 million pounds of mar dell and fully furnished and still came in $100,000 under budget. taft died before it opened for the first time in 1935.@
bret: and now fresh pickings from the political grapevine from the supreme court. even "the new york times" questioning president obama's promise of transparency saying "white house officials are proposing deep revisions to a senate judiciary committee bill that weakens protections against forcing reporters to reveal their sources. " the times says a shield law to protect journalists is necessary but that the white house wants judges to defer to the administration's view of what constitutes a security leak you, quote "the executive branch would abrogate the public's right to know by crimping the news media's ability to make a case for disclosure." it does not equal a new era of openness. >> although the dalai lama made no secret to meet with the president this week during his visit, the white house said it
will not happen until after the president's trip to china next month. it is the first time since 1991 that is sitting u.s. president will not meet with the dalai lama during a u.s. visit. "the washington post" reports, quote, in an attempt to gain favor with china, the united states pressured tibetan representatives to postpone. china considers the dalai lama a separatist and has intensified its desire to isolate him. an administration official denies that the dalai lama sought a meeting with the president this month and said that assuming a meeting had been postponed was, quote, counter factual. >> and could mahmoud ahmadinejad's attack on jews be an attempt to cover his own past? the london telegraph contends that a photo of ahmadinejad holding up his identity card last year shows his family has jewish roots. he was previously known by a jewish name meaning cloth weaver. ahmadinejad's family changed its name and converted to islam after his birth. ahmadinejad was press rodden
this issue during a presidential debate this summer and later a blogger was arrested after calling for an investigation into his background, but a middle east analyst who wrote an ahmadinejad biography insists he has no jewish roots. now, a look at the aftermath of another big supreme court decision. last year's ruling that struck down the handgun ban here in washington, d.c. correspondent james rosen reports that whilest is now legal to get a handgun in the nation's capital, it is definitely not easy. >> they hit right at the top of the bull's eye. >> target practice with a glock 17, the desired end goal for any aspiring handgun owner but several steps down the line for residents of washington, d.c. first comes the trip to police headquarters to pick up paperwork. >> you know all the safety features of your firearm? >> then a five-hour course on law, safety measures and hands-on practice taught by one of 30 licensed ininstructors in
d.c. >> if that weapon is discharged for any reason, there are legal consequences. >> then a trip to a gun store outside d.c. like the blue ridge arsenal and firing range in chantilly, virginia. >> is this the world's most powerful handgun? ought most powerful handgun in the world. it shoots a 50 .caliber bullet. >> do they make a holster for this? >> after you ping out a weapon that suits you, d.c. law requires a background check, a return to police headquarters for fingerprinting and a 20-question exam and a ten-day waiting exam and followed by a trip to police head headquarters again. >> d.c. is throwing up every obstacle, shackling the freedom to the point where it's no longer a freedom. >> assuming you pass all the checkpoints, the folks at blue ridge aresenal will transfer your firearm to the one licensed dealer who helps citizens register weapons, a camera-shy
man in the neighborhood. then they have to go back to the police department so cops can testifier the weapon. >> make a bull's eye! >> it has been almost 15 years since i last fired a handgun and i found it similar to golf, where every fourth or five shot is good enough to delude me into thinking if i stayed with it i would be good enough it. gun ownership is up, because while the homicide rate is down for last year, it still ranks fifth in the nation per cap tavment james rosen, fox news. bret: a judge in dallas says there is enough evidence to continue the case against a 19-year-old man from jordan accused of trying to whoa up a skyscraper. police say he drove a truck he believeed held a live bomb against a 60-story office building and tried to detonate it from roop another location. vaccinations for the h1n1 flu virus began today.
healthcare workers were given doses today. wide scale inoculations will not begin until the middle of the month when 40 million doses are delivered. >> next up, the fox all-stars with a preview of the big cases ahead for the supreme court on, this the opening day of the new session. each justice has their own suite of offices and usually a staff of four law clerks and several office assistants. >> i like to have my law clerks close at hand, and in my regular chambers, all my law clerks are rin side chambers. now i have two in that office and two down the hall that i like a quiet place and to be overlooking a court yard and not in the front of the building, so we doair in your home can be two to five times more polluted than the air outside. smoke, germs, viruses, allergens, pet dander,
even smelly and potentially harmful voc compounds can actually be floating in the air you're breathing! but now you can clean that air with the incredible oreck xl professional air purifier, and bring fresher, cleaner air into your home. call now for no interest and no payments for one-year! the secret to oreck's effectiveness is its patented truman cell filter. only oreck has it. the oreck air purifier constantly moves the air in the room through its powerful six-stage filtration system. its electrostatic plates capture many impurities such as dust, allergens, bacteria - even viruses -- then puts clean air back in the room. with hepa filters, you could easily spend hundreds of dollars on replacement filters in just five years. but the permanent oreck truman cell is guaranteed for life and should never need replacing. just rinse and reuse! how clean is the air in your home? try my oreck professional air purifier in your choice of black or silver for a full 30 days risk free, with free shipping!
if you don't breathe easier, sleep better, wake up more refreshed, dust your home less and simply enjoy the benefits of fresh, crisp, clean air, just send it back. it won't cost you a dime to try it. i'll ship it to your home at no charge, and you decide to return it, i'll even pay to take it back. you've got nothing to lose. you'll also receive my amazing refrigerator purifier! it destroys bacteria so food stays fresher longer. plus i'll send you my 2-in-1 cordless electrikbroom, a $100 value, yours to keep even if you decide to return the air purifier. call now to clean the air in your home for 30-days risk-free with the oreck xl professional air purifier.! pick up the phone right now and give me a call! you'll be glad you did. call the number on your screen or visit oreckcleanair.com. order now!
>> unfortunate agot a new justice and a whole new group of justices. it is an exciting time to see the dynamics on the court, whether they have shifted, whether there is a change substantively for the justice sotomayor. you never know when they sit in the closed conference room talking about how they are going to decide a case. >> part of the mystique, the mystery of the supreme court is what happened behind closed doors and this is the first day of the new session, the first day with justice sonia sotomayor. let's bring in our panel, stuart taylor with the national journal, steve hais with "the weekly standard" and mar are liasson of national public radio. let's start first with a new set of justices. stuart, what does this mean? does it turn the court? does it change it? >> i think the addition of justice sotomayor won't probably produce dramatically different decisions in terms of ideology, because she is expected to be a
thoroughly conventional liberal. she is replacing justice souter, who is a fairly conventional liberal. what it will change and a lot of the justices have spoken to this is the personal dynamics inside the court, and then it may produce, over time, you know, a little surprising changes here and there. a lot of people expect her to be more conservative than souter was on criminal law issues, and more liberal than souter was on business law issues, and at her confirmation hearings, she played her cards very close to the vest. in her first argument, she raise raised a provocative question as to whether corporations should really enjoyful constitutional rights, which was kind of in the background of a case they are hearing, but that raised some eyebrows. bret: steve. >> in part, we won't know, because, of course as you say, all of this is done behind closed doors. we won't see the effect she has, if any, on the arguments as they are making them behind the scenes. i agree with stuart. i think one of the most
interesting areas to watch is going to be in criminal proceedings issues. souter was a fairly down the line libertarian on those issues, and sotomayor, there are hints in some of her decisions earlier, some of her writings that she won't be that way, and, you know, it will be interesting to see, give than she was nominated by a liberal president, and that we are in a washington that is dominated by the leftite now, if she, in fact bucks that and tacks more to the right. bret: mara, what do you think? >> watching her and seeing if she lives up to the liberal hoax that has been invested in her. robert alito has been there for a while and has sea legs. up until now, robert has been careful, moving to the right for sure, but in tiny little baby steps and it will be interesting to see this term if he is willing to be more liberal.
>> what about the effort to persuade other justices in that conference room? >> i don't think the presence of justice sotomayor will change that dynamic but it may be changing over time. ever since roberts an alito joined, one question has been will they incrementally push to thite a little here and there, or will they take giant leaps an overrule precedents and strike down big acts of congress, which is the sort of thing that chief justice roberts sounded like he wasn't into. i think this term, and in particular, big campaign finance case, may tell us a lot about how fast they're going to move. also, there are five relatively conservative justices. they know that they're not going to get any reinforcements while barack obama is president, and so if they want to decide a case, they better get to it. >> john paul stevens raised only
one clerk. that raised eyebrows on whether he is positioning for retirement. steve, any thoughts about that? athink he assumed he would be more productive himself and didn't need the support. yeah, i think to the extent that supreme court watchers can define those things, that may be one sign, but i think it's true, that two most likely retirements are grinsburg and stevens and they certainly hold down the left side of the court, if you divide it that way. if, in fact, either one of them resign or step down, it doesn't give barack obama a chance to shift the balance of power on the court, because of the number of liberals. bret: stuart what about the cases they are rag greeing to take up, the big debate of what they take up and what they don't. as you look at the list, and it is a white variety, which strikes you? >> there is a big important list. i mentioned the big campaign finance case that. has more attention among supreme court watchers than anything else, because if they decide it in the way they seem poised to decide it after an oral argument
a couple of weeks ago, they would -- it would be a big new decision striking down a big chunk of the feingold campaign finance reform law, and liberating corporations to spend money in elections more freely than ever before. there would be a -- there is a law that is more than 50 years old that they're considering whether to strike down. there is a big gun control case. will their decision striking down a d.c. gun control law, a very strict one, will they apply that to other cities that are under state law, and there is a complicated doctrine there. probably they will. that could open some important doors. i don't think it will lead to wholesales striking down gun control laws, but then there is a list of other things, dogfighting videos, are they protected by the first amendment? criminal cases, will the miranda rights be weakened a little bit org strengthened a little bit? by the way, i don't think
criminal cases which were the original warren court revolution, in a lot of ways, i don't think they are as important to the liberals compared to say gay rights, abortion, et cetera, as they once were. >> to sonia sotomayor, the bissing business regulation cases will be an interesting test of where she side. >> yes, there is a sense in washington that she will be more liberal on those cases and we'll see exactly, a, how she decides, and b, what kind of influence she has, what kind of writings she does. bret: mara, anything else strike you? >> just watching the personal dynamics. she is a female. that counts for something. they can build consensus sometimes in ways that males can't. the question is will she not just be a reliable liberal vote but actually be a majority maker. bret: coming up, what happens after the supreme court rules?
>> this decision was at first seen as a great victory for cities and developers and business interests who wanted to abuse the power of eminent domain n ways it has turned into their worst nightmare because of the backlash. this project has been a failure. over $80 million in state taxpayer money has been spent, and there has been no new development in in the area whatsoever. >> between court cases and now that they are wrapping up, you have an economy that has slowed things down, it is taking longer than we had expected. bret: four years ago, the supreme court ruled that the city of new london, connecticut could use imminent eminent domain laws to seize private
property and essentially for economic development on this 90- acre tract. there is nothing going on four years later there on the development. what about the impact after supreme court scaises and on this case and also the d.c. handgun case? mara, on eminent domain question, people fought for this and the economy turned and they couldn't make it happen. >> it is ironic. the way that the court cleared the way for them to build something there and no, nothings been built there. the court's job is not to settle a local dispute. it is to settle a matter of law. what they said is it a constitutional to do what the city of new london wanted to do and it will make it easier for others if they want to take on the ire of their businesses and whom they will kick out of their homes to do that. i think it is ironic but i don't think it necessarily means that what the supreme court did was right or wrong. bret: just because there is not development there doesn't prove this case, but the case has been looked at by a lot of people, steve, as being an interesting
ruling. it was a 5-4 decision. >> it was a disastrous ruling. it was a terrible ruling. i don't think we should mince words about it. it was an awful ruling and that's exactly why you have seen this political backlash. who would have thought before the ruling that you would have essentially a nation of people or a huge swath of a nation of people get so incensed about eminent domain. i think people understand the unfairness of having government bureaucrats, whether they be city councils or elsewhere making decisions about what property they can take from citizens and give to corporations or to other citizens or what have you. it was an unfair decision. i think it spawned exactly the kind of political quack lash it should have. >> looking back at that ruling, is there looking back? >> i think there is looking back. it was a terrible ruling that you can take public public use and that includes giving it to
another private person for improving it. it has been a disaster in practice in two ways t has been hugely unpopular because the people this property was taken from weren't rich people. they were ordinary folks taken out of their homes for a fiasco, and it has been a fiasco in terms of what was put there, and it was a fiasco before the economy collapsed. this has not worked out well for advocates of government intrusions on property rights. >> the other story we did was the d.c. handgun case in which the supreme court ruled that washington d.c. residents can own a handgun. however, in practice, it is much more difficult, because of the sirte ti and how they have said no. stuart. >> yeah there was an interesting story in "the washington post" as i think one of the reporters tried to get a handgun and said it cost hundreds of dollars, took hours and hours an multiple trips to the police station. the lesson was that d.c. may have to let us have handguns but they are making it as hard as they k that should not be
surprising. d.c. officials said afterwards we will go right up to the letter of the law in terms of what the court will let us do in restricting handguns t will probably take more court decisions to force them to make it easier. bret: steve, the lesson is that the court can rule on the case, but in practice, it's a different story. >> i think we will likely see more court decisions. there is interesting patrol ticks happening behind this where republicans have worked to attach amendments to a bill, the d.c. voting rights bill, that would actually legalize all guns, make it a lot easier for people to do this and democrats have thus far been very quiet about this, because they don't want to raise the issue and there are a lot of democrats who have challenged the president on this issue, on gun control. they don't want to talk about it. bret: there is another case, the chicago gun control case, a handgun case. >> of summary president's own hometown, and this president has said famously that the second amendment does give an individual the right to bear arms. the democrats have been clear for many years now, gun control
is not at the top of their list. bret: stuart, final word. any surprises that you predict here looking at this term? >> oh, boy. i'll take a flier since nobody remembers when you pre-el dict wrong and say at least for the first term, justice sotomayor will not be the flamboyant liberal that conservatives expected, but give her time. bret: welcome to the panel. thanks for playing tonight. >> nice to be with you. bret: panel, thank you. stay tuned for another intimate look behind the scenes at the supreme court. . the sixties were all about freedom. ♪ and now in my sixties, they are again. grandpa, are we there yet? i have the freedom to do what i want... and go where i want. grandpa, come on! freedom is what i like about my medicare supplement insurance.
i can see the doctor i want, where i want, anywhere in the country. now your sixties can be a time of freedom again... with aarp medicare supplement insurance plans... insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. because any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare... will accept aarp medicare supplement insurance. anywhere in the u.s. the freedom to do my own thing, without worrying about which doctor i can see. medicare covers only about 80%... of your part b healthcare costs. the rest has to come out of your pocket. but with an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, you could save up to thousands of dollars... because it helps cover some of the out-of-pocket expenses... medicare doesn't. and only these medicare supplement plans... have the aarp name... and cover more people nationwide... than any other medicare supplement insurance carrier. call today and you'll receive a free information kit... with a customized rate quote to help you choose the plan... that's right for you. you'll learn about a choice of plans... that help cover some of the 20% out-of-pocket costs... that medicare part b doesn't cover, making it easier to budget your annual healthcare expenses.
oh, grandpa! and you'll discover how convenient and easy... it is to use your aarp medicare supplement insurance. you just show your card. no hassles. at this time of my life, freedom is everything. medicare only pays for part of your healthcare coverage. you have to come up with the rest. it's all about freedom of choice. back in the sixties, i went my own way. why stop now? so call today for a free information kit. when you call, you'll also receive... this free educational guide to help you... understand your medicare coverage options. it's yours free, so call now. and learn how aarp medicare supplement insurance... can help make your sixties a time of freedom.
>> justice o'connor insisted we have lunch every day when we were sitting. now, clarence, you should come to lunch and she is really sweet but very persistent. i came to lunch. one of the best things i did. it is hard to be angry orbiter at someone and break bread and look them in the eye. it is a fun lunch. very little work is done there it's just nine people, eight people, whoever shows up having a wonderful lunch together. it is wonderful. >> i try not to miss a post argument lunch because you never know what my colleagues will be talking about. >> usually in an argument day most of the justices are there in our dining room. it is the rule there that we don't talk about the cases. my colleagues who go to the opera will talk about the opera. some of us will talk about the baseball game or the golf
tournament. somebody will talk about a good movie they have seen or a good book they have read or something particularly interesting their families doened at kind of things everybody would talk about at lunch with colleagues. bret: well, thanks to our friends at c-span for letting us show you some of our tremendous access to the court. that is "special report" for this time. the only place you will get the whole story. thanks for inviting us into